4 ms·

A copy is not a piece of art. It's a copy of a piece of art. The original was made by the person who conceived the art. That is the value.

kazinator 12y ago
The logical conclusion is that "digital art" is an oxymoron, since it allows exact copies, indistinguishable from originals. If you record yourself playing the violin, but digitally, that sequence of easily reproduced bits isn't a work of art, just a copy: the first copy, of which there will be a second and so on. Also, literature cannot be art, because the words themselves are the poetry or prose, and not the specific representation in orgiginal handwriting or typesetting. When you read an author, you're not really reading the art, but a copy of the art. A handwritten manuscript may be a form of visual art, but what if the manuscript was produced with a generic typewriter, or digitally ...
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  I think what was meant is that the act of copying is not art. Downloading an application isn't programming.
sp332 12y ago
Then how can the "original" painting be a work of art? It's just an artifact of an act of creation. If art is in the act, then the artwork is dead as soon as it is finished.
calibraxis 12y ago
Suppose I own a piece-of-art and a copy. I swap molecules between them gradually, until the original no longer has any of its original molecules, and the copy has them all. Which is the piece-of-art? The art world probably has bizarre ideologies because they serve as investments and status symbols to elite patrons/customers. (And while the artist lives, they'd like to get paid. But our world isn't dominated by artists, so their subsistence isn't considered as important.)
- mlvljr 12y ago
  Another communist!
- jckt 12y ago
  I don't think your description of copying is particularly useful regarding physical art, as that type of "replicator" technology (molecule switching) is far, far away. In reality copies are, well, never so completely identical (far from it). Of course whether or not one can actually detect the differences is another matter, and at which level of detection one is required to differentiate copy from original is necessary is yet another. What do you think about museums -- a public institution that is more or less the antithesis of your view of the art world? Without going into semantics, let's say you have a genuinely old artefact. Now someone comes along and makes a replica. Let's say they're virtually identical, and the only difference is in the carbon dating, which you can't really fake. Which one should be admitted into the museum?
ambler0 12y ago
I'm not sure why you have been downvoted. I think the sentiment you're expressing is a very common intuition that people have about art. It's uncomfortable to think about, because it leads to the logical conclusion that art is really about status rather than about the work itself. On the other hand, if art really is about the work itself apart from considerations about status or historical context, then art is no longer rare; there's great stuff everywhere.

kazinator 12y ago

The logical conclusion is that "digital art" is an oxymoron, since it allows exact copies, indistinguishable from originals. If you record yourself playing the violin, but digitally, that sequence of easily reproduced bits isn't a work of art, just a copy: the first copy, of which there will be a second and so on. Also, literature cannot be art, because the words themselves are the poetry or prose, and not the specific representation in orgiginal handwriting or typesetting. When you read an author, you're not really reading the art, but a copy of the art. A handwritten manuscript may be a form of visual art, but what if the manuscript was produced with a generic typewriter, or digitally ...

jiggy2011 12y ago
I think what was meant is that the act of copying is not art. Downloading an application isn't programming.

sp332 12y ago

Then how can the "original" painting be a work of art? It's just an artifact of an act of creation. If art is in the act, then the artwork is dead as soon as it is finished.

calibraxis 12y ago

Suppose I own a piece-of-art and a copy. I swap molecules between them gradually, until the original no longer has any of its original molecules, and the copy has them all. Which is the piece-of-art? The art world probably has bizarre ideologies because they serve as investments and status symbols to elite patrons/customers. (And while the artist lives, they'd like to get paid. But our world isn't dominated by artists, so their subsistence isn't considered as important.)

mlvljr 12y ago
Another communist!
jckt 12y ago
I don't think your description of copying is particularly useful regarding physical art, as that type of "replicator" technology (molecule switching) is far, far away. In reality copies are, well, never so completely identical (far from it). Of course whether or not one can actually detect the differences is another matter, and at which level of detection one is required to differentiate copy from original is necessary is yet another. What do you think about museums -- a public institution that is more or less the antithesis of your view of the art world? Without going into semantics, let's say you have a genuinely old artefact. Now someone comes along and makes a replica. Let's say they're virtually identical, and the only difference is in the carbon dating, which you can't really fake. Which one should be admitted into the museum?

ambler0 12y ago

I'm not sure why you have been downvoted. I think the sentiment you're expressing is a very common intuition that people have about art. It's uncomfortable to think about, because it leads to the logical conclusion that art is really about status rather than about the work itself. On the other hand, if art really is about the work itself apart from considerations about status or historical context, then art is no longer rare; there's great stuff everywhere.